Kotaku: 10 Big Myths About Video Games, Debunked By The People Who Make Them

NullPointer said:
What do you mean, specifically? What would be a good example of a lazy approach to the job?
Click to expand...

A good example of a lazy approach would be to not use something which is simple to use and easy to notice - like AF on PS4 for example or the ability to change the rendering resolution in Dark Souls. Time constraint argument doesn't work here as such things don't need much time to be implemented. What works here is the approach to the job where a developer doesn't really care about the thing he's doing since he's missing some simple and easy to implement things which are highly relevant to the resulting game quality - in my view this is that "laziness" which is talked about in these cases, not the amount of hours they've put into the project as this is a pointless metric anyway.
 
Really?
All of those myths are just debunked by using a bit of your brain. Oh, not ALL developers are rich? Wow, who would have guessed?
 
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Lazy devs is the most oft repeated catch phrase in online gaming forums. And over shit like "I can't believe this beautiful 60fps game occasionally drops frames" or "I can't believe this AAA game runs at sub HD."
Click to expand...

Yup, you see that quite a bit on here.

Anyway, good article and while I've not seen some of the misconceptions, I have no doubt they exist and on the other hand, I have also seen quite a number of these, even here on GAF. Lazy Devs being the most repeated one.

The Bugs one is another I see a lot here. "How come no one caught this bug". There can be several reasons for that. One of them actually is "It was never found during QA" which is possible due to how complex some bugs can be. Certain things needed to be done exactly to make it happen. It's why during actual Alpha/beta tests (aka not stress tests), when bug reporting, many devs ask for specific info on how to replicate the problem because without that, they may not get the same problem or even get a different bug that they didn't see while trying to find your bug that you reported.

Of course on the flip side, some of the most common bugs that get found quite quickly, they may have indeed be caught but the decision maker (ie publisher or another suit) decides "it's not worth fixing just now, leave it for the day 1 patch/post release patch" (or something similar).

So saying "Incompetent/lazy/etc" QA is pretty ignorant but is thrown around a lot. Sometimes on here, sometimes on other forums or comment sections. It's a pretty ignorant statement to blame QA. If you're going to blame anyone for something that you believe should have been fixed, blame the suits who made the decision. (again most likely the publisher not being willing to delay the game to fix it or think it won't affect sales - I admit this might be me being ignorant but it's better than blaming the QA for something they don't have the power to fix)

The game development is easy one. While I haven't seen anyone outright say it, it does feel like the idea is there. You look on any game dev team recruitment forum and you do see people thinking they can do all these big ideas and are recruiting people to help them. Some of them are obviously impossible things for first timers (MMOs being the biggest offender) but try and explain the realities and you usually don't get anywhere. Others have ideas and try to recruit teams for making these ideas happen while they have no skills of their own apart from 'ideas'. (side note: I once saw someone advertise themselves as an ideas engineer. I'm pretty sure it was a troll but it was pretty funny how dedicated he was to calling himself that)

So yeah while I've seen nothing said 'outright', the inherent idea feels prevalent in many peoples heads.

The realistic graphics one, now that again I haven't seen outright "If this game had more realistic graphics, it would be so much better" but I have seen many people dismiss any game that either isn't 3D or the art style isn't realistic. That makes it seem like those people who say that think it being realistic will make it much better than if it wasn't realistic.

Of course for some people, they just prefer a more realistic and grounded art style but there are people who think realistic = better I'm sure.

Final one I'll touch on is the DLC is evil one. I am personally not a fan of DLC but I have grown to accept it (though I'll not touch DLC that I don't wish to support of course. Something everyone should do. If you don't want to support whatever that piece of DLC is, then don't buy it).

I am however glad that it keeps people from getting laid off because there is no other work for them to do. We see plenty of layouts from restructuring companies, downsizing, etc and from companies that have to shut down. Without DLC being there for people to work on, we might see even more stories of layouts but it's not because the company isn't doing well, it's because they have no more work for the developers to do.

Now while I haven't seen every misconception mentioned here (I mentioned the ones I've seen), I have no doubt they exist. Like someone else said, many of these people WORK in the industry and as someone who works in the industry, goes to events (both consumer events like EGX or PAX or industry events meant for building connections - including both first time or very new developers (who don't know the realities of development) along with seasoned veterans), and probably have friends who are jealous of them being in the industry. They are bound to hear far more misconceptions than people who sit at their computers and browse GAF/gaming news sites all day.

What may seem obvious to you is not to another. Remember that.
 
dr_rus said:
A good example of a lazy approach would be to not use something which is simple to use and easy to notice - like AF on PS4 for example or the ability to change the rendering resolution in Dark Souls. Time constraint argument doesn't work here as such things don't need much time to be implemented. What works here is the approach to the job where a developer doesn't really care about the thing he's doing since he's missing some simple and easy to implement things which are highly relevant to the resulting game quality - in my view this is that "laziness" which is talked about in these cases, not the amount of hours they've put into the project as this is a pointless metric anyway.
Click to expand...

Time, so pointless a metric that it is merely one of the corners to the Iron Triangle. I wonder how many of my devs would like me calling their extra time pointless. I wonder how many of my managers would twitch uncontrollably if I said, "my team is going to stop tracking time, it just seems pointless."
 
dr_rus said:
A good example of a lazy approach would be to not use something which is simple to use and easy to notice - like AF on PS4 for example or the ability to change the rendering resolution in Dark Souls. Time constraint argument doesn't work here as such things don't need much time to be implemented. What works here is the approach to the job where a developer doesn't really care about the thing he's doing since he's missing some simple and easy to implement things which are highly relevant to the resulting game quality - in my view this is that "laziness" which is talked about in these cases, not the amount of hours they've put into the project as this is a pointless metric anyway.
Click to expand...

I have 50 days of work to do with 30 days remaining. How do I fit implementing this in when there are other things that are higher priority? Time constraint is most certainly a valid excuse.
 
Marty Chinn said:
I have 50 days of work to do with 30 days remaining. How do I fit implementing this in when there are other things that are higher priority? Time constraint is most certainly a valid excuse.
Click to expand...

The bigger issue is the unreasonably aggressive schedules often being being pushed on devs, to the point that the most basic quality assurance passes can't even be met in some cases. It's pretty much "do just enough QA to pass certification, and issues the hardware console cert teams find we'll try to negotiate on and waive and/or convince them we can address in a day 0 patch."
 
RPGam3r said:
Time, so pointless a metric that it is merely one of the corners to the Iron Triangle. I wonder how many of my devs would like me calling their extra time pointless. I wonder how many of my managers would twitch uncontrollably if I said, "my team is going to stop tracking time, it just seems pointless."
Click to expand...

Time is a pointless metric because time does not convert to quality directly. It's what you do in this time which matters. And if your priorities are wrong and the resulting product is missing some basic and easy to implement features then you will be called "lazy" even if you've worked 24/7 for a year.

Marty Chinn said:
I have 50 days of work to do with 30 days remaining. How do I fit implementing this in when there are other things that are higher priority? Time constraint is most certainly a valid excuse.
Click to expand...

If there are other things which are higher priority than some low hanging fruits with big impact then your priorities are wrong. And this is basically the same as a lazy/wrong approach to a thing in general as wrong priorities are stemming from lack of interest.
 
dr_rus said:
If there are other things which are higher priority than some low hanging fruits with big impact then your priorities are wrong.
Click to expand...

So if the deadline is coming closer and there can't be a delay... and a feature (especially one that was heavily advertised) isn't finished yet or has bugs that need sorting versus some 'easy to implement' feature. They should do the latter rather than work on fixing bugs/finishing an already planned feature that was advertised and risk having to cut said feature for visual quality?

Just an example but I'm sure some examples like that do happen.
 
ZeroGravity said:
At least half of these seem entirely made-up simply to have an article.

"Game Development Is Easy? A Good Idea Is All a Game Needs? All Game Developers Are Rich?"

These are in no way common misconceptions.
Click to expand...

Same. I mean, this just reads like hey here are ten things I think I hear gamers complain about and here are ten generalized anecdotal statements why they're wrong. Not all DLC is evil, no one thinks it is. But for every good DLC, I can provide you probably 10 off the top of my head that were cut solely to be sold as DLC for profit, or poor DLC etc.

Even the graphics thing. Game development is a progressive industry. You can say your 2D pixel game is cutting edge all you want, but there is a reason why graphics are equally as important as game play. Just like CGI in movies. A game like Ori and the Blind Forest looks better than a game like Donkey Kong tropical freeze.
 
dr_rus said:
Time is a pointless metric because time does not convert to quality directly. It's what you do in this time which matters. And if your priorities are wrong and the resulting product is missing some basic and easy to implement features then you will be called "lazy" even if you've worked 24/7 for a year.



If there are other things which are higher priority than some low hanging fruits with big impact then your priorities are wrong. And this is basically the same as a lazy/wrong approach to a thing in general as wrong priorities are stemming from lack of interest.
Click to expand...

Who are you to say what priorities are right or wrong for any development studio? You don't know what they were looking at for scope. Time impacts quality, it matters. The only way to deal with time is by managing scope/quality or spending more. This how the triangle works, time is a factor and it has direct connections to quality.
 
Fhtagn said:
Yeah, I see the lazy devs and "how did QA not find this?!?" ones on here all the time.

I don't work in games, but I do work in QA (the last 9 years now!) and there are a lot of bugs that:

1. Don't get fixed by X date, because something else takes priority and there are only so many hours in the day. Things that have a work around and don't cause lost data are less important than crash bugs, for example.

2. Didn't get found because they only happen under a bizarre set of steps that are very much not obvious, or interactions of features, hardware, user configs, browser versions and OS that no one foresaw...

And it's always management that decides what ships. QA can say "this bug is a disaster!" but if management has to ship by X date because of contracts, they don't necessarily care.

(Thankfully the company I work for DOES care and has doubled the size of our QA team this year.)
Click to expand...

Yep. I handle support escalations to our R&D dept, and that's exactly how it is. Just because you found the bug and figured out how to reproduce it, doesn't mean management wants to pay to fix it. Because it might be one or two lines of code to fix, but those two lines of code live in a central module that touches everything else, so the testing effort is super expensive.
 
Fantastapotamus said:
Really?
All of those myths are just debunked by using a bit of your brain. Oh, not ALL developers are rich? Wow, who would have guessed?
Click to expand...

Do you know how much the writer for a TV show makes for an episode they wrote?

orthodoxy1095 said:
Give me a break. Your average GameStop customer doesn't know or care enough about the machinations of the industry to believe this stuff.
Click to expand...

Um... actually, that would mean they believe it even more and without question.
 
orthodoxy1095 said:
Give me a break. Your average GameStop customer doesn't know or care enough about the machinations of the industry to believe this stuff.
Click to expand...

Are we looking at the same list?

Game development is easy...
A good idea is all a game needs...
Game developers are rich...
Realistic graphics mean a better game...
Casual games don't matter...
Players always know what's best for the game...

This is all shit the average Gamestop customer believes. This is all shit the average Gamestop employee believes.
 
dr_rus said:
A good example of a lazy approach would be to not use something which is simple to use and easy to notice - like AF on PS4 for example or the ability to change the rendering resolution in Dark Souls. Time constraint argument doesn't work here as such things don't need much time to be implemented. What works here is the approach to the job where a developer doesn't really care about the thing he's doing since he's missing some simple and easy to implement things which are highly relevant to the resulting game quality - in my view this is that "laziness" which is talked about in these cases, not the amount of hours they've put into the project as this is a pointless metric anyway.
Click to expand...


1. I don't know how or even IF their engine works with AF or how quickly or easily it can be implemented or at what fidelity . I do know that it is not "easy."
2. Time constraints are the most universal constraints in the development of anything and directly connected to costs.
3. You can't simply redefine "lazy" to suit your definition.
 
“They have a shower cause they’re here all the time. They have some guys that just work on graphics and since it’s a multiplayer game, what if a player reaches a point in the game and the graphics aren’t done yet?! So they have to be here all the time.”
Click to expand...

LOL I love that anecdote
 
Stinkles said:
1. I don't know how or even IF their engine works with AF or how quickly or easily it can be implemented or at what fidelity . I do know that it is not "easy."
Click to expand...
"Easy", when spoken by non-technically inclined executives, is code word for long nights working on useless bullshit to both myself and the programmers I've worked with.

Its basically a jinx.

We've actually banned it in our office, just to make the point clear.
 
gblues said:
Yep. I handle support escalations to our R&D dept, and that's exactly how it is. Just because you found the bug and figured out how to reproduce it, doesn't mean management wants to pay to fix it. Because it might be one or two lines of code to fix, but those two lines of code live in a central module that touches everything else, so the testing effort is super expensive.
Click to expand...

One thing people forget about coding. One , becoming a . by accident can ruin EVERYTHING.

Of course, I haven't done any real coding outside of CSS,HTML, and stuff I made on the C64. Thinking about downloading that SmileBasic program for the 3DS and brushing up.

Also, I've been papering this local QA place because.. need job.. and.. it's a few blocks away from my house.
 
PdotMichael said:
If working 80h is standard, and they know it but they don't want to change their life and job.

What should do I as outside? They are all smart people with degrees and skills, they could have it better pretty much instantly.
Click to expand...

If everybody had that type of mindset we would still be at the stone age or probably extinct. No medicine, electricity, computers... neogaf lol

Thank god, the world still has some dedicated human beings. And they are being called lazy
 
While I don't recall outright calling devs "lazy" I've definately felt "less effort" was put into sequels of games.

Also the DLC misconception is the industries fault as a whole, what used to be cheat codes is now DLC, how DLC is used through pre-order bonuses and horse armour and other such abuses has warped people's reaction to day one DLC on a reflexive level.

How about a Far Cry game set in the Star Wars universe playing as Han Solo?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to see how this idea wouldn't work other than on a logistics level in that Ubisoft isn't onboard with the Star Wars license and Harrison Ford isn't too old for this shit.
 
Steroyd said:
While I don't recall outright calling devs "lazy" I've definately felt "less effort" was put into sequels of games.
Click to expand...

The idea of someone calling someone else lazy when their only point of reference is something else some other developer did for different reasons under different context.... is fucking laughable at best and ridiculously offensive at worst.
 
ScatheZombie said:
Are we looking at the same list?

Game development is easy...
A good idea is all a game needs...
Game developers are rich...
Realistic graphics mean a better game...
Casual games don't matter...
Players always know what's best for the game...

This is all shit the average Gamestop customer believes. This is all shit the average Gamestop employee believes.
Click to expand...
Employees, yes. The casual customers who walk into GameStop? I just really doubt it. They don't know and they don't care.
 
Triggerhappytel said:
Interesting article, but some of these 'misconceptions' aren't things I've ever seen complained about or even mentioned before reading this article:



These all seem tenuous at best in my opinion. I certainly don't think anyone believes that all developers are rich, nor that realistic visuals make for a better game.
Click to expand...

If you've ever seen a "game developer" on a crime procedural you've seen what the average person thinks the job is like. A handful of college bros in a slick office fucking around, eating pizza, and making millions of dollars without a care in the world. The idea might seem absolutely stupid, but that's because you're far from the average. Even people on GAF often believe developers are making much more than they are, especially when it comes to KickStarters where everyone seems to think the team is pocketing half of the backed money and that any budget figures given are bullshit.

And a huge amount of people definitely put everything on visuals, I'm really not sure how you could claim otherwise. Look at practically any topic discussing an upcoming console game on GAF and you'll see that.
 
ArtHands said:
Because gamers demand their heads and threaten to boycott the game if they announce a delay for QA purpose.
Click to expand...

Those are message board posts that have no impact.
We enable bad working conditions by giving publishers money for their game upfront by preordering games and buying games no matter the behind the scenes details. The only way to change the situation would be a developers union that enforces change, hard to realise though when dozens of poeple willingly leap into the grinder and ignore this union.

The other option is us not buying games that were created under such circumstances, also doesn't work as the majority doesn't even know about these working conditions and many wouldn't care even if they'd know. And even if that would happen then it would come with the cost of less working places and projects, someone always has to bleed.
 
dr_rus said:
If there are other things which are higher priority than some low hanging fruits with big impact then your priorities are wrong. And this is basically the same as a lazy/wrong approach to a thing in general as wrong priorities are stemming from lack of interest.
Click to expand...
I would think the game not crashing would take property over low hanging fruit that many people won't care about. Who are you to say or even know what their issues and priorities are? If it's so simple, write me the code in your reply that implements it. Also make sure it doesn't introduce any timing issues between threads as well.

Isn't this one of the points the article addresses about people thinking game development is easy?
 
I like to subscribe to the idea that game developers don't put themselves into this "it's a job, so we get it already". IMO lots of great games came from some sorta dream or passion that grew with the technology.

Lots of people have game ideas, you can see them now more than ever, but that doesn't mean they defined the genre.

You can make a puzzle strategy visual novel and that doesn't mean you helped dominate the scene. To me, there's a lot of diversity and a lot of politics to game design. You typically hear about what defined video games.

It's written in textbooks now.

Years ago they'd have one guy who'd read the programming manual and then develop the game from that point on.

Now a days I'm just a little biased towards whose opinion I actually care about. Sure I support game designers, but that doesn't mean I care about 75% of them. That sounds somewhat harsh, but hey it's not like you'll listen to the Behind the Music of bands you don't enjoy.

If you look back beyond the last 10 years there was nothing about social media and game designers beyond interviews if you ask me. Now a days it's all about getting a title put out and voila' you are a game designer.

It cheapens the admission price, but who am I to say anything? I'd love to be a game designer, but I think a lot of the detailed work would burn me out. I'd mostly be there to coach other people and so forth.

I think laziness plagues people who go to school for game design. Do they realize a large population of people got fooled or tricked into the idea of "Let's make games for a living"? Remember those "You were born for this" TV ads about becoming game designers?

I'm not even sure where it's even at anymore. I am personally into the history of game design. I like the stories of what happened versus what person A or B is stereotyped as being. Sure the ones who made it rich have more of an edge to their shoulders, but wouldn't you? If you made a million or more on a video game; you'd be sitting above the broke gamer who can barely get by buying video games at full price.. but that's part of life.

I think now that game developers have new stories to tell, vintage or retro game designers get stuck in this "textbook classroom" discussion. That's great because it gives light on the subject that people in 2015 probably don't care about, but it's something I've enjoyed before we had YouTube and Twitter.

I enjoy hearing about the days of Atari and how the console wars were in the 70's. I believe their stories. I think indie developers and their legacy is still early in its lifespan because it's so rough following a legacy after another legacy. The last legacy of video game designer built the foundations of the entire business. That's what's so fascinating about it all.

Hearing about Nolan Bushnell is like 100.0x more interesting than a Steam game that got Greenlit overnight. That's just how I see it. Anyone? :)
 
Auto-Reply said:
Those are message board posts that have no impact.
We enable bad working conditions by giving publishers money for their game upfront by preordering games and buying games no matter the behind the scenes details. The only way to change the situation would be a developers union that enforces change, hard to realise though when dozens of poeple willingly leap into the grinder and ignore this union.

The other option is us not buying games that were created under such circumstances, also doesn't work as the majority doesn't even know about these working conditions and many wouldn't care even if they'd know. And even if that would happen then it would come with the cost of less working places and projects, someone always has to bleed.
Click to expand...

I am just digging at the people who made those posts.

Also not buying games which is created under such condition isn't going to fix things. Those developers has got bills to pay while making do with this unstable career path.

This issue is everywhere in the industry, most probably even in Naughty Dog.
 
"misconception: dlc is evil"

game news sites are so annoying in siding with this fallacy of black and white.

They really like to ignore egregious dlc practices, which are the norm, and try to humanize the practice of this damn price-gouging dlc.

Of course dlc is inherently not evil, but to strawman with such a sweeping statement is to blatantly ignore the negative health gaming has endured because of these multitudinous dlc practices.

Horse armour, disc -locked content like the crap found in destiny, dlc affecting the experieince by making you have to grind much longer to earn things in game, etc. The list goes on,but oh no. The poor defenseless dlc just means well, despite the track record of cases showing devs don't. Where was that Jim sterling video again?
 
Auto-Reply said:
Those are message board posts that have no impact.
Click to expand...

I can't count the times that I've read an internet post where someone, in earnest, acts like the forums are the whole of the audience.

I mean hell, we're on GAF where someone gets a chubby each time it is referenced by an actual dev.
 
Nobody sees the effort, they just see a good or bad game. That can be said about any creative industry though, they only see the output.
 
Kotaku: 10 Big things developers wanted to complain about, that are totally common sense to most people.

OT: Effort doesn't mean shit, if you try really hard to make something shitty, it's still shitty. I'm sure they're nice people though.
 
This thread is full of people who borderline claim ownership of the words and feelings of every developer involved with a piece of digital entertainment they were too eager to buy.

People get shit for the points in this article, on this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Perfect Dark Xbox Showcase 2024 Gameplay was fake, according to Kotaku sources (UP: dev who worked on the game has debunked the claim)
Rumor  2 3
119
381
Panajev2001a replied
Bad news about Kotaku...
18
148
KiteGr replied
Top 10 developers in the video game industry (Most talented)
2
71
1K
SpokkX replied
This game was only made by X people!!!
25
372
bad guy replied
Steam hacked: passwords leaked (debunked)
News  2 3
118
2K
ArtHands replied
Top Bottom